Saturday, August 31, 2013

The Atlantic can't stop whoring for war on Syria. Elspeth Reeve offers another little war porn ditty with the title "Do We Have Iraq PTSD?"

Do the writers for The Atlantic have enough brain parts among each of them to assemble an entire brain if put together?

Post-Traumatic Stress is not a novelty or a fancy for you to play with. That you would think it was goes to how whorish The Atlantic is.

People with PTS suffer and, if they're lucky, they can find a treatment that works for them. I don't know why anyone would think PTS made for a flashy word choice or that it was something to make sport of.

I was asked in an e-mail this week how long I could write about Iraq, with the statement being made that it was "so long ago."

Really?

What?

Forty years ago?

It's not that long ago and US troops remain in Iraq.

More importantly, I don't embrace the spoiled child approach. My children have manners and know to treat people fairly. They are wonderful adults because they're naturally wonderful (in spite of their parents) but also because lessons were taught. Such as, if they made a mess -- or contributed to one -- at another person's home, it didn't matter if I had to be somewhere else right then (even for a TV interview at one time that I'm thinking of right now), we didn't leave until they had either cleaned up the mess themselves or helped clean it up.

So I don't understand how you bomb and shoot up a country year after year and then, woops, I got other things to do, you can clean up the mess right, see ya!

The press is stupid and immature. That's not my fault. The US has an obligation to pay attention to Iraq because it was the US government that destroyed the country.

The straight answer is: This is year nine of this site and I'm sure I could write about Iraq for another nine years. I hope I don't, I hope I've gotten offline before then. But the story of Iraq continues.

The poetic answer can be found in Anne Sexton's "For John, Who Begs Me Not To Enquire Further:"

I tapped my own head;it was a glass, an inverted bowl.It is a small thingto rage in your own bowl.At first it was private.Then it was more than myself;it was you, or your houseor your kitchen.And if you turn awaybecause there is no lesson hereI will hold my awkward bowl,with all its cracked stars shininglike a complicated lie,and fasten a new skin around itas if I were dressing an orangeor a strange sun.Not that it was beautiful,but that I found some order there.There ought to be something specialfor someonein this kind of hope.

Like the e-mailer, The Atlantic apparently feels the Iraq War was so long ago that they can now make PTS jokes or belittle it.

Leave it to a War Whore to so little value the suffering of those who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan War. The Atlantic is disgusting.

Wally is of the opinion that my finger was deliberately broken. No. I know the look and if I'd been thinking, I would've extracted my hand and given the person a hug because, though I've never had a finger broken from a handshake before, I have had my hand hurt for a few hours after. This was someone thrilled to see me (me for offline, not for "C.I.") and they wanted an autograph and a picture together and that is more than fine. I really wish my finger had not gotten broken but I realize it was not the intent. After I extracted my hand (too late), I did pull the man into a hug and he went on his way and I have no complaint with him. Accidents happen. This is the point -- as you read in the newsletter -- Hilda's Mix -- if you're a community member, that Wally looks down at my hand and nearly passes out. He also walked the man away, firmly, which I was not aware of the time. I had no idea, my hand was hurting but we had a busy day and I was thinking about that schedule and posing for a picture with another person. This is when Kat comes over and says we need to go the emergency room and I've now spotted Wally walking back towards us and think he's sick from something he ate. At which point I finally look down at my hand and see my smallest finger sticking out at a 90 degree angle from my hand. And I did say, "It's like Death Becomes Her." In part because I really thought Wally was going to hurl and I was trying to make him laugh instead. But we went to the emergency room and got great service and care.

They sent me to a specialist at the hospital who had to pull this thing down from the ceiling and put my finger in it to try to get it to go straight. (It was like the Chinese handcuffs kids play with it but hanging from a long chain.) They had to pull it and jerk it repeatedly but I had six shots in that finger by then and couldn't feel a thing. They wanted to schedule surgery for that day. No.

I hate surgery and I had too much to do that day to make time for it. They were wonderful but I have a wonderful doctor here at home and I called her and asked her to suggest someone. She did. I scheduled the surgery for when we'd be home and speaking in the home area.

I had it the 19th or around there. I noted it in that day's snapshot because, as I said, I wasn't in the mood. I had a plate put in and I don't take pain pills so that I heal quickly. But I wasn't in the mood and I was calling out a friend in the snapshot when I typed "I'm not in the mood."

That led a number of people who read frequently but are not community members to immediately assume: "Surgery? A cancer scare again?" No. And all the e-mails on that to the public account that I saw got a reply from me. If you wrote -- out of fear -- and I read it, you got a reply. The person who wrote, "thrilled you're finally getting what you deserve" -- I didn't bother to offer a reply to that.

By that time, not only did the community know, but Stan had written some about it at his site (more specific than Trina's 'you'll feel guilty right now if you gripe about how long it's taking C.I. to type the snapshots' -- I do type them in August. I dictate the rest of the year to very good and caring friends. But everyone needs time and so I always grab the snapshot in August). Stan had asked if he'd done anything wrong with that?

No.

Everyone can write whatever they want, including about me, and that's fine. I normally don't comment on it and that's my policy -- Write what you want but don't expect me to comment.

Since Stan had written about it in detail, I thought many more would be aware of it. It's Stan's most read post (not because of me, because of his movie review in that post) this year. So with that and Trina's and then Wally's piece in the newsletter, I really assumed anyone who cared knew.

Sorry for anyone who worried or, in the case of being thrilled, "bought a bottle of Jack" Daniels "to celebrate," but it was just a finger.

As Wally noted in his newsletter piece and as Stan noted in his post, Wally was convinced it was on purpose and something to do with speaking out against wars. I don't think so. In 2004, when I was shoved down in a Chicago airport, that was about my opposing war, but I don't think this man was anything but really excited to me someone that he'd long connected with through art. He was a very kind man. But because Wally was worried, I am going around to events with a bodyguard in the background both this month and next (after that I hope Wally will stop worrying -- that's not me attacking him for worrying, he's a wonderful friend and it's great of him to care).

Hopefully that clears up any questions that might have remained.

I do want to reduce the size of the snapshots. I've said I was going to -- said here -- for over two years now. It would have been very easy to use the injury this month to finally reduce them but I didn't. That said, I may move towards it now (Tuesday the snapshots return to being dictated -- Monday there probably won't be one but if there is I'll be typing it).

After I forgot this last week, I told myself I'd include it on Monday. No time, no space. It was like that all week. Point? If you feel like I do not immediately highlight what you want shared, I don't even have the time to take care of what I want to share.

Why are we including that? Although I'm much liked online as me, there's a whole cottage industry that lives to hate C.I. -- including the group in the other country that made sport of my cancer a few years back. So there's a chance that eyeballs who do not normally read us will be steered to us by the blogger who led that earlier attack (that's who e-mailed about getting a bottle of Jack Daniels to celebrate, FYI -- we're not even going to name the ass, we're not giving them any promotion). Fresh eyeballs mean we can again note Barack sent US troops into Iraq last fall.

As-salam alaykum. Distinguishable Judges of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. May it please the Tribunal:

The Palestinians have been the victims of genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I say that because of my practical experience: On 8 April 1993 and 13 September 1993 I single-handedly won two World Court Orders on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention that were overwhelmingly in favor of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Bosnians in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention. This was the first time ever that any Government had won two such Orders in one case since the World Court was founded in 1921. On 5August 1993 I also won a so-called Article 74(4) World Court Order for Bosnia against Yugoslavia for genocide. According to I.C.J. Statute Article 74(4), when the full World Court is not in session in The Hague, the President of the Court exercises the full powers of the Court and can issue an Order to the parties in a lawsuit that is legally binding upon them.

Article II of the Genocide Convention defines the international crime of genocide in relevant part as follows:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group such as:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

….

As documented by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his seminal book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), Israel’s genocidal policy against the Palestinians has been unremitting, extending from before the very foundation of the State of Israel in 1948, and is ongoing and even now intensifying against the 1.75 million Palestinians living in Gaza as this Tribunal convenes here today. As Pappe’s analysis established, Zionism’s “final solution” to Israel’s much-touted and racist “demographic threat” allegedly posed by the very existence of the Palestinians has always been genocide, whether slow-motion or in blood-thirsty spurts of violence. Indeed, the very essence of Zionism requires ethnic cleansing and acts of genocide against the Palestinians. For example, concerning the 2008-2009 Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza – so-called Operation Cast-lead -- U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, the former Foreign Minister of Nicaragua during the Reagan administration’s contra-terror war of aggression against that country which was condemned by the World Court, condemned it as “genocide.”[1]

Certainly, Israel and its predecessors-in-law—the Zionist agencies, forces, and terrorist gangs—have committed genocide against the Palestinian people that actually started on or about 1948 and has continued apace until today in violation of Genocide Convention Articles II(a), (b), and (c). For over the past six and one-half decades, the Israeli government and its predecessors-in-law—the Zionist agencies, forces, and terrorist gangs—have ruthlessly implemented a systematic and comprehensive military, political, religious, economic, and cultural campaign with the intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, racial, and different religious group (Jews versus Muslims and Christians) constituting the Palestinian people. This Zionist/Israeli campaign has consisted of killing members of the Palestinian people in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(a). This Zionist/Israeli campaign has also caused serious bodily and mental harm to the Palestinian people in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(b). This Zionist/Israeli campaign has also deliberately inflicted on the Palestinian people conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in substantial part in violation of Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention.

Nevertheless, apologists for Israel have argued that since these mass atrocities are not tantamount to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews, therefore they do not qualify as “genocide.” Previously, I had encountered and refuted this completely disingenuous, deceptive and bogus argument against labeling genocide for what it truly is, when I was the Lawyer for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina arguing their genocide case against Yugoslavia before the International Court of Justice. There the genocidal Yugoslavia was represented by Shabtai Rosenne from Israel as their Lawyer against me. Rosenne proceeded to argue to the World Court that since he was an Israeli Jew, what Yugoslavia had done to the Bosnians was not the equivalent of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews and therefore did not qualify as “genocide” within the meaning of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

I rebutted Rosenne by arguing to the World Court that you did not need an equivalent to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews in order to find that wholesale atrocities against a civilian population constitute “genocide” in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Indeed the entire purpose of the 1948 Genocide Convention was to prevent another Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. That is why Article I of the Genocide Convention clearly provided: “The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” (Emphasis supplied.) You did not need six million dead human beings in order to constitute “genocide.”

Furthermore, in support of my successful 1993 genocide argument to the World Court for Bosnia, I submitted that Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention expressly provided: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, as such…” (Emphasis supplied.) In other words, that to be guilty of genocide a government did not have to intend to destroy the “whole” group as the Nazis intended to do with the Jews. Rather, a government can be guilty of genocide even if it intends to destroy a mere “part” of the group. Certainly Yugoslavia did indeed intend to exterminate all Bosnian Muslims if they could have gotten away with it, as manifested by their subsequent mass extermination of at least 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in July of 1995. I would later become the Attorney-of-Record for the Mothers of Srebrenica and Podrinja at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (I.C.T.Y.). In that capacity, I convinced the I.C.T.Y. Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte to indict Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for every crime in the I.C.T.Y. Statute for the atrocities he inflicted upon the Bosnians, including two counts of genocide -- one count of genocide for Bosnia in general, and the second count of genocide for Srebrenica in particular. Milosevic died while on trial in The Hague after the I.C.T.Y denied his Motion to Dismiss these charges after the close of the Prosecution’s case.

But in 1993 it was not necessary for me to argue to the World Court that Yugoslavia intended to exterminate all the Bosnian Muslims. Rather, I argued to the World Court that at that point in time the best estimate was that Yugoslavia had exterminated about 250,000 Bosnians out of the population of about 4 million Bosnians, including therein about 2.5 million Bosnian Muslims. Therefore, I argued to the World Court that these dead victims constituted a “substantial part” of the group and that the appropriate interpretation of the words “or in part” set forth in Article II of the Genocide Convention should mean a “substantial part.”

The World Court emphatically agreed with me and rejected Rosenne’s specious, reprehensible, and deplorable arguments. So on 8 April 1993 the International Court of Justice issued an Order for three provisional measures of protection on behalf of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia that were overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against all the Bosnians, both directly and indirectly by means of its Bosnian Serb surrogates. This World Court Order for the indication of provisional measures of protection was the international equivalent of a U.S. domestic Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction combined. The same was true for the Second World Court Order with three additional provisional measures of protection that I won for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia on 13 September 1993. The same was true for the Article 74(4) Order I won for Bosnia against Yugoslavia from the World Court on 5 August 1993.

In its final Judgment on the merits in the Bosnia case that was issued on 26 February 2007, the World Court definitively agreed with me once and for all time that in order to constitute genocide, a state must only intend to destroy a “substantial part” of the group “as such”:

198. In terms of that question of law, the Court refers to three matters relevant to the determination of “part” of the “group” for the purposes of Article II. In the first place, the intent must be to destroy at least a substantial part of the particular group. That is demanded by the very nature of the crime of genocide: since the object and purpose of the Convention as a whole is to prevent the intentional destruction of groups, the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. That requirement of substantiality is supported by consistent rulings of the ICTY and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and by the Commentary of the ILC to its Articles in the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of mankind (e.g. Krstić, IT-98-33-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment, 19 April 2004, paras. 8-11 and the cases of Kayishema, Byilishema, and Semanza there referred to; and Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 45, para. 8 of the Commentary to Article 17).

In other words, in order to find Israel guilty of genocide against the Palestinians, it is not required to prove that Israel has the intention to exterminate all Palestinians. Rather, all that is necessary is to establish that Israel intends to destroy a “substantial part” of the Palestinians. Furthermore, in paragraphs 293 and 294 of its 26 February 2007 Bosnian Judgment, the World Court found that you did not even need 250,000 exterminated Bosnians in order to constitute genocide -- let alone six million exterminated Jews. Rather, even the seven thousand exterminated Bosnian Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica were enough to constitute genocide. According to the World Court, these victims constituted about one-fifth of the Srebrenica community.

Starting in 1948 Israel obliterated about 500 Palestinian villages from off the face of the earth, literally reducing them to rubble now scattered across the Palestinian countryside in order to prevent their ethnically cleansed inhabitants from ever again returning to their homes because they no longer exist. And the list of Israeli genocidal massacres of Palestinian communities is quite extensive. To name just a few of Israel’s most notorious acts of anti-Palestinian genocide: Deir Yassin, Tantura, Sabra and Shatilla, Jenin, Nablus, and repeatedly and continuously Gaza. As we meet here today, Israel is “deliberately inflicting on the [1.75 million Palestinians in Gaza] conditions of life calculated to bring about [their] physical destruction in whole or in part” in gross and flagrant violation of Genocide Convention Article II(c).

In order to prevent yet another and predictable wholesale slaughter and acts of genocide by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and elsewhere, we most respectfully request this Tribunal to condemn Israel guilty as charged for genocide as well as for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Article I of the Genocide Convention requires: “The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” The Genocide Convention has been incorporated into the Charter of Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal by means of Article 10.

Pursuant thereto, it is respectfully submitted that this Tribunal must “undertake to prevent and to punish” Israel for its genocide against the Palestinians by finding Israel guilty as charged. Should this Tribunal find Israel guilty as charged for genocide, it will then trigger the solemn obligation found in Article I of the Genocide Convention for every state in the world community to likewise “undertake to prevent and to punish” Israel for its ongoing genocide against the Palestinians. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal must issue this shot heard around the entire world on behalf of the Palestinians by finding Israel guilty of genocide against them.

This is exactly what the International Court of Justice did for Bosnia and the Bosnians in 1993 when it ruled against Yugoslavia on genocide. The World Court deliberately shook up the entire world and propelled humanity to act to save Bosnia and the Bosnians from annihilation and extermination by Yugoslavia. Bosnia and the Bosnians are still alive today thanks in significant part to that 1993 World Court ruling on genocide.

I am respectfully asking the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal to do the same today for Palestine and the Palestinians. Shake up the entire world! Get humanity to act to save Palestine and the Palestinians from further annihilation and genocide by Israel! Make sure that Palestine and the Palestinians are still alive twenty years from now! Convict Israel for genocide!

Thank you. And may God be with you when you retire to deliberate upon your Judgment.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Friday, August 30, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, protests continue, Nouri attempts to stop protests tomorrow, Stuart Bowen weighs in on the US efforts in Iraq, John Kerry continues to huff and puff about Syria, US government may have lost France's support as well (yesterday they lost England -- at least for now), four US Senators (Bernie Sanders, Patty Murray, Richard Burr and Bill Nelson) work together (proving that it can be done) for the American people, and more.

We'll move quickly to Syria and then onto Iraq but with the US government being such an embarrassment currently as so many members of Congress think the term "oversight" actually means "conceal from the American people," let's open with the rare example of members of Congress working for the betterment of the American people and doing so in a bipartisan fashion. Applause for Senator Bernie Sanders (Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee), Senator Patty Murray (Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee), Senator Richard Burr (Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee) and Senator Bill Nelson (Chair of the Senate Special Committee on Aging) -- an Independent (Sanders), a Republican (Burr) and two Democrats (Murray and Nelson) working together and for doing what we expect members of Congress to do but what rarely is done anymore. From the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee:

WASHINGTON,
Aug. 30 – Leaders of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the
Special Committee on Aging said today that they are “deeply troubled” by
the Department of Veterans Affairs’ lax oversight of private advisers
to veterans applying for pensions and other benefits.

The
senators cited a new report by the Government Accountability Office
that faulted the VA for loosely enforcing its own vague rules on
accrediting private financial planners, attorneys, insurance agents and
others. The nonpartisan congressional agency that audits federal
programs also criticized the VA for leaving itself vulnerable to abuses
and for keeping veterans in the dark about their rights.

The GAO report was cited in a letter
to Secretary Eric Shinseki from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and
Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman and ranking member of the veterans’
committee. Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a veterans’ committee member
and former chairman, and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the Senate Special
Committee on Aging chairman, also signed the letter.

“We
are deeply troubled by the findings indicating weaknesses in the
accreditation program, which may prevent VA from ensuring that veterans
are served by knowledgeable, qualified, and trustworthy
representatives,” the senators wrote.

The
senators said the accreditation procedures should be strengthened to
protect veterans from unscrupulous advisers among the 20,000 approved by
the department. They also echoed a GAO recommendation and urged the
department to do a better job letting veterans know how to report
abuses. Problems with the accreditation program are compounded by a lack
of staff and inadequate technology, the senators added.

The
latest GAO report builds on an investigation last year that found weak
oversight and unclear rules made the VA ripe for abuse. That report
found that some firms overcharge veterans for services or sell financial
products that end up limiting veteran’s access to the benefits that
they deserve.

Daniel Akaka was Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee before Senator Murray and he and Richard Burr had a professional and respectful relationship. Murray and Burr continued and deepened that. It continues now with Sanders and Burr. No, Burr didn't agree with the three on everything or them with him on everything but they found a way to be adults and to stay focused on the issues. It's a shame that this is not carried through on every Congressional Committee. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has been able to focus on a large number of issues and actually move mountains on a few because of the lack of egos in leadership. Akaka, Murray, Sanders and Burr especially deserve applause. And, again, it is so very nice to see one aspect of Congress (or, for that matter, the federal government) which functions and works.

Over to the topic of Syria . . .

Still reeling from yesterday's vote in the British Parliament (which means -- for now -- England will not be able to join the US government in attacking Syria), US President Barack Obama insisted this afternoon that, Eyder Peralta (NPR) notes, "he has not made a final decision on launching a military strike on Syria." Why? The morning started with efforts by the administration to sell France as a historic and glorious partner in an attempt to use France's support of an attack to take the place of England's backing. Ian Black (Guardian) was calling it a "coalition a deux." But, by mid-day, a wrinkle emerged on that front. John Lichfield (Independent) reports that French President Francois Hollande "appeared today to back away from immediate air strikes against Syria by talking of the importance of a 'political solution' to the crisis."

Another break Barack and his fellow War Hawks couldn't quite catch this week. And the reason that, mid-morning, the White House dropped the effort to talk up historic ally France.

Golly, that doesn't seem like national security at all. That sounds like vanity and ego. You know how to avoid having egg on your face and being a public laughingstock? Stop making false claims and stop making threats. As a member of the Senate, John Kerry grasped that. In fact, he so grasped what diplomacy was that world leaders were pulling for the 2004 election to result in President John Kerry. All that skill and ability has left him as he degrades himself and his legacy (Secretary of State is Kerry's last big hurrah on the national scene). DS Wright (Firedoglake) dissects the speech here.

John Kerry, possibly after being beaten at the ballot box by a moron like Bully Boy Bush, has no respect for the American citizens. Mark Murray (NBC News) reports on a new poll. The Hart Research Associates poll could be titled Bad News For Barry. 48% disapprove of Barack's job performance as president (only 44% approve); 49% disapprove of Barack's "handling foreign policy" (41% approve); approval for handling of Syria specifically 44% disapprove (35% approve). What should the US government do with regards to Syria? 7 responses in order of popularity:

Provide only humanitarian assistance 40%Take military action to help stop the killing 26%Take no additional action 23%Provide arms to the opposition 6%Not sure 3%Take some sort of action 1%Take some mix of actions 1%

If chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government, 42% say military action is needed while 50% say no, it is not. 41% feel military action would not improve life for the people of Syria while 27% think it will.

Asked, "Do you think that President Obama should or should not be required to receive approval from Congress before taking military action in Syria?" 79% said, "Should be required to receive approval." Only 16% say he's not required to.

PDF format warning, the full results are here. Margin of error is +/- 3.70%

Are you getting why John Kerry's so desperate that he's spouting lies to the American people?

David Cameron was humiliated last night, Thursday, when he suffered a historic Commons defeat on plans to bomb Syria.He asked MPs to back military action but in an unprecedented blow, they voted by 285 to 272 against air strikes.The vote reflects the overwhelming anti-war feeling among people
in Britain – and the fear that missile strikes against Syria would be
the start of yet another failed attempt by the West to control
the Middle East.Cameron, who had made a passionate plea for support for his
proposals to launch attacks on Damascus after a chemical weapons attack
last week, was forced to issue an embarrassing climbdown.The shaken leader admitted it was clear that parliament “does not
want to see British military action”. He added, “I get that. The
government will act accordingly.”Opposition MPs responded by shouting, “Resign”.The last time a prime minister was defeated over an issue of war and
peace was in 1782. As the scale of the historic defeat became clear
Conservative MPs turned on each other. Education secretary Michael Gove
barked, “You’re a disgrace, you’re a disgrace” at government rebels.The result was also a blow to Nick Clegg who had ditched his party’s soft anti-war stance to side with the Conservatives.“This marks a sea change in British politics. The government no
longer has a blank cheque to go to war,” Labour MP and chair of the Stop
the War Coalition, Jeremy Corbyn, told Socialist Worker.

As the United States and France move towards military action in
Syria, Syrian-Americans are voicing concern for the safety of their
families back in the Middle East. FSRN’s Theresa Campagna reports from
Chicago.Anti-war protesters in several cities worldwide will march
Saturday, saying a Western intervention in Syria will only intensify the
war already happening on-the-ground. This morning, both President
Obama and President Hollande of France told the press they want military
intervention, despite their ally's vote against it in the UK.
“My cousin was on his way to his senior, like exam, you know, his
high school exam you know. It was the same day the university was
bombed.”That's Bassel Al-Madani, a Syrian American in Chicago who has been
fundraising to send money to family in Syria since February. He says
most Syrians are getting by, despite the war. But like many
Syrian-Americans, Al-Madani wants it to end so his family can move on.
FSRN, Theresa Campagna, Chicago.

Earlier today, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now! -- link is text, video and audio) explained, "Pentagon officials say the U.S. Navy has moved five destroyers equipped
with Tomahawk cruise missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea to
prepare for a possible strike on Syria. This comes as the British
Parliament voted Thursday not to back international action against Syria
following the Assad regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons last week.
This comes as a team of U.N. inspectors, who spent the week traveling
to rebel-controlled areas in search of proof of a poison gas attack, is
set to give its preliminary findings to U.N. Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon on Saturday."

On this week's CounterSpin (FAIR -- link is audio), Peter Hart spoke with IPS' Phyllis Bennis about the coverage of the US push for an attack on Syria. Excerpt.Phyllis Bennis: Only if the [United Nations] Security Council votes to endorse the use of force is the use of force legal. No other agency, institution, organization has that right. So the Kosovo precedent that you refer to and that unfortunately this is being talked about in the press. It's being asserted that if the Security Council doesn't agree, there are other options. Yeah, there are other options. The problem is they're all illegal. The Kosovo model was illegal. What the US did in 1999, when it wanted to bomb, to start an air war against Serbia over Kosovo, realized it would not get support of the Security Council because Russia had said it would veto. So instead of saying, 'Well okay we don't have support of the Security Council, I guess we can't do it,' they said, 'Okay, we won't go to the Security Council, we'll simply go to the NATO High Command and ask their permission.' Well, what a surprise, the NATO High Command said 'sure.' It's like the hammer and the nail. If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you're NATO everything looks like it requires military intervention. The problem is, under international law, the UN charter is the fundamental component under international law that determines issues of war and peace. And the charter doesn't say that the Security Council or NATO or the President of the United States can all decide over the use of force. The only agency that can legally approve the use of force is the Security Council of the United Nations. Period. Full stop.

[. . .]Peter Hart: We've heard right from the beginning that the Syrian government would not allow inspectors access to the site of this attack. That was considered proof that they were culpable, that they were hiding something. But the reality seemed to be that the United States was trying to pull the plug on this UN investigative team from the start which I think is one of the most shocking, under-covered part of this story.Phyllis Bennis: I don't think we can say with any certainty what the motivation was of the US but certainly what they did was to try and scuttle the role of the team and to deliberately mislead people. Secretary Kerry, in particular, misled people about what the timeline was and stated that the time line very clearly indicated some guilt by the Syrian government. His claim was: 'We asked -- and the UN asked -- for access to the site on Thursday. They didn't grant that access until Sunday, therefore, they were delaying for days because they were trying to hide something. They're trying to degrade the evidence. They may be bombing the evidence. They're trying to make sure that the inspectors can't do their job.' Well it turns out that the facts are a little different. The facts are that on that Thursday, the UN announced that they were going to request access. The actual request did not arrive until Saturday when Angela Kane, the disarmament chief of the United Nations, arrived in Damascus. The announcement that they were going to ask is not a legally acceptable anything in diplomatic terms. When asked about it, when pushed on it, the UN spokesperson Farhan Haq said, 'Well that's just semantics.' But diplomacy is all about semantics, you know? A press release does not equal an official request from the United Nations. There was an official, legal request and it arrived on Saturday with Angela Kane. On Sunday, the Syrian government said "yes," the inspectors can go in. And on Monday, the investigators were on the ground doing their work. That's hardly an example of a major delay. Now I should be clear in saying that, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Syrian regime is not responsible for these attacks. They may well be. But it does mean that that claim by Secretary Kerry -- which is the basis, a big part of the basis, for saying --'This proves that they are responsible and therefore we can go in and bomb Syria,' it certainly did not happen that way.

Like Obama, Tom Perriello,
a former congressman from Virginia who now serves as president of the
Center for American Progress Action Fund, strongly opposed the Iraq war.
But he now strongly backs action in Syria.

Molly Ball, get an education. I'm not even talking about the Center for American Prissies, I'm referring to the false claim that Perriello "strongly opposed the Iraq War" and the sleight of hand Molly uses to make you think he did that while in Congress.

There is no proof that Perriello opposed the Iraq War -- strongly or weakly. He wasn't even focused on the US at that point. He spent 2002 and 2003 a s the Special Court for Sierra Leon's International Prosecutor's Special Advisor. The Center for American Progress insists of Perriello, "Expertise: Congress, Middle East and Africa, conflict . . ."

Stop. He is not an expert on Congress. He may be an expert on quickly losing public support. In the 2008 elections, he was elected to the House of Representatives. In the 2010 elections, he lost that seat. He served one term (Jan. 2009 to Jan. 2011). He was not in Congress when the Iraq War was being sold or when it started. In the position he did have during that time, he was working for a foreign government and for the United Nations and, in that capacity, if he did have an opinion re: Iraq War, he would have been encouraged to keep it silent.

In their bio on Perriello, CAP forgets to note that Perriello received the endorsement of the NRA (probably since demonizing the NRA has become a Democratic Party priority of late) and that the bachelor candidate Perriello had a campaign that couldn't stop running to the media to scare up homophobic rumors about his GOP rival in the 2008 race.

The Center for American Progress is yet another tired Democratic Party front group -- started by the man who threw "a girlish hissy fit" (words of a Democratic US House Rep) when John Conyers, Ramsey Clark and Francis A. Boyle presented the case for impeaching Bully Boy Bush and the need for it. John Podesta is a joke. He's a well used political prostitute and CAP is just a bordello for the Democratic Party. We've covered this at length for many, many years. And we aren't the only ones to do so. John Stauber's owned the topic and written of it better than anyone (and written of it much, much, much better than I have).

August
30, 2013 – In response to signals from the Obama administration that it
will pursue U.S. military intervention in Syria in the wake of attacks
last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following
statement:

We strongly oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria and urge the
Obama administration to support increased diplomatic measures to
protect civilians in the region. A United Nations investigation into the
massacre of last week is still ongoing. For whoever is deemed
responsible, accountability must come by way of investigation and
prosecutions under international law, not further militarism in the
region.

It is a manifest lesson of this country’s recent history that U.S.
military intervention in conflicts of this kind has not served human
rights or humanitarian purposes, even when these are the stated goals.
The U.S. and Iraq are still reeling and suffering from a decade-long
illegal war that was waged on the basis of false information about
weapons of mass destruction and sold to the American people as a quick
military intervention. Hundreds of thousands, including many civilians
and children, died as a result of that war, in which the U.S. used
weapons that have been widely condemned, such as white phosphorous,
napalm-class weapons and weapons containing depleted uranium. Iraq is
still dealing with the catastrophic aftermath, which includes
skyrocketing rates in birth defects and cancer widely attributed to the
use of these weapons. The U.S. should be accounting for this harm and
making reparations, not readying to engage militarily once again.

UN officials are calling for political solutions to the crisis in
Syria – not additional violence. The Obama administration needs to act
in concert with other countries and international legal bodies to broker
a political settlement in Syria and bring an immediate cessation of
violence. Diplomacy and the rule of law, including international law,
must be our guideposts for acting in this situation.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing
and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR has previously challenged U.S. military action and use of force as violating U.S. and international law, including in the invasion of Grenada, in El Salvador, in Panama, for the First Gulf War, Serbia/Kosovo and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. CCR
is currently representing a group of U.S. veterans of the Iraq war and
two Iraqi human rights organizations seeking accountability and
reparations for the war as part of the Right to Healinitiative.

From the new war they want to the one they hope Americans have forgotten . . .

Since December 21st, protests have been ongoing in Iraq. And they continued today. Dropping back to Tuesday's snapshot:Despite that, look for the attempted storming of Ramadi to be ignored. Alsumaria reports
that Nouri is attempting to use the court, the Ministry of the Interior
and Nouri's attorney general's office to stop the protests, insisting
that it's so violent in Iraq today, the protesters are in danger.
Whether in Hawija or elsewhere, the only people who have killed
protesters have been Nouri's forces. Alsumaria notes
that the attempt to kill the protest is being denounced with a
coalition stating Nouri is attempting to violate the Constitution which
allows for peaceful demonstrations and that this is yet another attempt
by Nouri to silence opposition.

Iraqi
Interior Ministry called the citizens not to demonstrate out of fear of
security breaches that may attack them, as well as estimating the
current military situation of the country.

In
a statement by the ministry, copy received by Aswat al-Iraq, it added
that "some youths have the intention to demonstrate on 31 August instant
demanding the cancellation of parliamentary pensions and provision of
political and economic reforms".

They protested despite intimidation techniques and safety warnings.
(Protesters who have been killed at protests have all been killed by
Nouri's forces.) They gathered today despite the continued mass arrests
of the week. They gathered today in the hope that they could make that
better Iraq that the US government pretended to want back in 2003 when
they launched an illegal war on Iraq.

NINA reports: Preacher Sheikh Mustafa Sabri of Fri-prayers of Fallujah said in his
sermon that campaign of /revenge of martyrs / is a sectarian campaign
targeting Sunni areas directed by the government in Baghdad belt areas
were arbitrary arrests and besiege of residential areas are massively
perpetrated. He added in his sermon addressed to thousands of
worshipers who held a unified Fri-prayers east of Fallujah : " Prime
Minister Nuri al - Maliki launched unprecedented arrest campaign against
Sunnis. The source also added that the campaign dubbed /
martyrs revenge / is extremely a sectarian injustice campaign noting
that Iraq ever witnessed a similar which began with the support of
sectarian militias backed by Iran, but it created a serious impacts.

In Samarra, Sheikh Samir Fouad delivered similar remarks, ""The security breaches that followed the sectarian crackdown that
targeted areas of Baghdad's belt ,is in reality targeting the people of
these areas under the pretext that they represent incubator of
terrorism behind them sectarian motives , as during which unjust random
arrests are perpetrated so far ." Alsumaria reports
Sheikh Samir Fouad, in Samarra, decried the mass arrest campaign and
stated that the many arrests of innocent people has demonstrated to the
world that the claim that the campaign is just and to avenge the dead is
a false claim. The Sheikh called for the release of the innocents. Kitabat adds there was a call in all areas of protests on the members of the Iraqi military to disobey any orders that they target their Sunni brothers and sisters and they called for an end to the killings and displacements.

Iraqi Spring MC notes that in Najaf, they called on the government to stop trying to shut down the protests. NINA notes
"thousands" participated in the Falluja and Ramadi protests today and
quotes Sheikh Mohammed Fayyad stating that today's goal "is to send once
again a message to the governing in Baghdad that our demonstrations are
peaceful and backed by citizens' deep conviction." Sam Mahmoud and Ammar al-Ani (Alsumaria) note
that the Ministry of the Interior has announced that they have not yet
decided to institute a curfew for Saturday but they have banned all
vehicles with paper plates (temporary license plates) from Baghdad for
24 hours. In addition, Ahmed Hussein (Alsumaria) reports
that the four bridges connecting the east and west of Baghdad have been
closed, large concrete barriers put in place and large numbers of
security forces stationed by the barriers.

Earlier today, Human Rights Watch issued a call for the Iraqi government to cease efforts to ban tomorrow's protests:Iraqi
authorities should legitimately explain why it is necessary to ban
demonstrations planned for August 31, or allow them to proceed. They
should ensure organizers are able to appeal any ban.
Two groups who organized concurrent demonstrations in Baghdad calling
for the cancellation of parliamentarians’ pensions applied to the
Interior Ministry for permits on August 21, 2013, as required by Iraqi
law. On August 22, Interior Ministry officials refused to issue them
permits, without providing them a reason. Organizers of both
demonstrations expect them to go ahead, but told Human Rights Watch that
they are concerned that Iraqi security forces will use force to block
what they said would be peaceful demonstrations, and may arrest and
intimidate organizers should the planned demonstrations take place.
“It’s ironic that officials suggest that using force to block peaceful
demonstrations will assist Iraq’s ‘march to democracy’,” said Joe Stork,
acting Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities can
ban demonstrations if they believe they will be violent, but here the
concern seems that protests will be politically embarrassing or
inconvenient.”
In a statement published on its website on
August 27, the Interior Ministry said that “security challenges and
traffic problems require us to delay the demonstrations” of August 31.
Citing “consideration of the risks of terrorism by al-Qaeda and
Ba’athists… and of weakening the authority of the state, compounded by
regional agendas that seek to weaken Iraq for their own interests,” and
its determination to “challenge all negative phenomena that stand in the
way of the march of democracy,” the statement said security forces
would “firmly confront those who disrupt the security of the country and
of its citizens.”
The UN’s first special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, emphasized in a May 2012 report that
states may only restrict the right to peaceful assembly where there is a
“pressing social need.” The report stressed that states should not need
to ban peaceful gatherings in order to fight terrorism effectively, and
said “the free flow of traffic should not automatically take precedence
over freedom of peaceful assembly.” Kiai places responsibility on
authorities to provide assembly organizers with “timely and fulsome
reasons” for any ban, and the possibility of a swift appeal.

Ahead of planned country-wide protests across
Iraq tomorrow over Iraqi MPs’ pension payments, Amnesty International
has called on the Iraqi authorities to respect and protect protesters’
rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.Demonstrators are intending to gather in several locations in Iraq
tomorrow to protest at regulations that grant Iraqi MPs high pensions -
even after only a few years of service. In light of economic
difficulties faced by many Iraqis, the generous parliamentary pension
scheme has drawn widespread criticism. On 18 and 20 August organisers of the demonstration applied for
permission with the Office of the Governor of Baghdad and the Ministry
of Interior, respectively. Their requests were refused. Since then Iraqi
authorities, including the Ministry of Interior and the General
Prosecutor, have called for the demonstration in Baghdad to be postponed
due to security concerns. However, protesters plan to go ahead with the
demonstration.In several provinces outside Baghdad, including Babel and Diyala, the
authorities have reportedly granted permission for demonstrations to be
held this weekend. Yesterday the Iraqi Bar Association held
demonstrations against the MPs’ pension scheme in several of its
branches, including outside its head office in Baghdad.In general, the Iraqi authorities have appeared determined to stop
large demonstrations taking place in central Baghdad since
anti-government protests erupted across the Middle East and North Africa
in 2011.Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui said:“People in Iraq have the right to express their views freely and to protest peacefully without the threat of violence.“Rather than preventing peaceful assemblies, the government should be
taking steps to ensure people can exercise their right to protest in
safety and security.“Ongoing violence in the country must not be used as a pretext for
continuing a blanket ban on peaceful anti-government demonstrations in
central Baghdad or any other public spaces, anywhere in the country.”Hundreds of people continue to be killed every month in violent
attacks by armed groups across Iraq. On 28 August scores of civilians
were killed in a wave of bomb attacks targeting Shi’a neighbourhoods of
Baghdad.Suppression of protests in Baghdad:
At the end of last year, tens of thousands of Iraqi opposition activists
took to the streets, mainly in provinces with a Sunni majority, to
demonstrate at violations of detainees’ rights. However, the authorities
prevented any such protests taking place in central Baghdad.
Earlier this month (2 August) more than 100 people attempted to
demonstrate against corruption and violence at Tahrir Square in Baghdad.
Thirteen were arrested by security forces. Several detained protesters
later reported being beaten in custody. Amnesty has seen images
purporting to show bruises sustained during these beatings.

On Aug. 5, 2013, Sadr decided to retire from political life, as a punishment to his supporters.
After announcing that decision, Iraqi parliament Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi himself demanded that Sadr retract this decision.
Nevertheless, Hanan al-Fatlawi, a parliament member in Maliki's State of Law Coalition, questioned what
Sadr’s retirement from political life meant, asking, “Is he a
president, a prime minister or even a minister to [be able to] retire?”
This statement angered Sadr’s supporters, who considered it
disrespectful of their spiritual leader. Yet the motives that pushed
political and parliamentary forces to call Sadr to retract the decision
to retire from political life are that the departure of Sadr would lead
to a division or disagreement in his political bloc, or restore power to
its military wing, the Mahdi Army.
The fact is, the political party in Iraq reflects the image of its
leader. Therefore, there are conflicting speculations about the fate of
the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in the absence of its leader and the
president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani.
For this reason also, Maliki's State Law Coalition seems committed to
nominating its leader for a third term. It will inevitably be unable to
agree on an alternative to Maliki. The same applies to all other
parties.

Between
2003 and 2012, the United States spent $60.6 billion on the relief and
reconstruction of Iraq. During the nine-year rebuilding program, $15
million per day was spent on reconstruction.

In some cases
security costs estimated at 10 percent of a project’s price tag, ended
up being 25 to 30 percent of the total expenditure for some schools and
hospitals and other civil infrastructure projects, he said.

“There
were several healthcare clinics blown up,” said Bowen, who visited Iraq
more than 30 times during the war. “There were 24 people killed
building the Basra Children’s hospital. The Fallujah wastewater
treatment plant saw multiple people killed and it took eight years to
finish instead of two and a half. “

The United States did worse
in establishing a democratic government and essential public services
like health care and infrastructure building, Bowen said. He awarded
basic governance a C-minus, citing the failed election of 2010 as a
catalyst of the unrest that has marked the past four years of life in
Iraq.

“Our strategy cannot be ‘No more Iraqs and Afghanistans.’
It has to be, 'how are we going to succeed in the next stabilization and
reconstruction operation?'

Dropping back to Tuesday's snapshot:Despite that, look for the attempted storming of Ramadi to be ignored. Alsumaria reports
that Nouri is attempting to use the court, the Ministry of the Interior
and Nouri's attorney general's office to stop the protests, insisting
that it's so violent in Iraq today, the protesters are in danger.
Whether in Hawija or elsewhere, the only people who have killed
protesters have been Nouri's forces. Alsumaria notes
that the attempt to kill the protest is being denounced with a
coalition stating Nouri is attempting to violate the Constitution which
allows for peaceful demonstrations and that this is yet another attempt
by Nouri to silence opposition.

Iraqi
Interior Ministry called the citizens not to demonstrate out of fear of
security breaches that may attack them, as well as estimating the
current military situation of the country.

In
a statement by the ministry, copy received by Aswat al-Iraq, it added
that "some youths have the intention to demonstrate on 31 August instant
demanding the cancellation of parliamentary pensions and provision of
political and economic reforms".

They protested despite intimidation techniques and safety warnings. (Protesters who have been killed at protests have all been killed by Nouri's forces.) They gathered today despite the continued mass arrests of the week. They gathered today in the hope that they could make that better Iraq that the US government pretended to want back in 2003 when they launched an illegal war on Iraq.

NINA reports: Preacher Sheikh Mustafa Sabri of Fri-prayers of Fallujah said in his
sermon that campaign of /revenge of martyrs / is a sectarian campaign
targeting Sunni areas directed by the government in Baghdad belt areas
were arbitrary arrests and besiege of residential areas are massively
perpetrated. He added in his sermon addressed to thousands of
worshipers who held a unified Fri-prayers east of Fallujah : " Prime
Minister Nuri al - Maliki launched unprecedented arrest campaign against
Sunnis. The source also added that the campaign dubbed /
martyrs revenge / is extremely a sectarian injustice campaign noting
that Iraq ever witnessed a similar which began with the support of
sectarian militias backed by Iran, but it created a serious impacts.

In Samarra, Sheikh Samir Fouad delivered similar remarks, ""The security breaches that followed the sectarian crackdown that
targeted areas of Baghdad's belt ,is in reality targeting the people of
these areas under the pretext that they represent incubator of
terrorism behind them sectarian motives , as during which unjust random
arrests are perpetrated so far ." Alsumaria reports Sheikh Samir Fouad, in Samarra, decried the mass arrest campaign and stated that the many arrests of innocent people has demonstrated to the world that the claim that the campaign is just and to avenge the dead is a false claim. The Sheikh called for the release of the innocents.

Iraqi Spring MC notes that in Najaf, they called on the government to stop trying to shut down the protests. NINA notes "thousands" participated in the Falluja and Ramadi protests today and quotes Sheikh Mohammed Fayyad stating that today's goal "is to send once again a message to the governing in Baghdad that our demonstrations are peaceful and backed by citizens' deep conviction." Sam Mahmoud and Ammar al-Ani (Alsumaria) note that the Ministry of the Interior has announced that they have not yet decided to institute a curfew for Saturday but they have banned all vehicles with paper plates (temporary license plates) from Baghdad for 24 hours. In addition, Ahmed Hussein (Alsumaria) reports that the four bridges connecting the east and west of Baghdad have been closed, large concrete barriers put in place and large numbers of security forces stationed by the barriers.

Earlier today, Human Rights Watch issued a call for the Iraqi government to cease efforts to ban tomorrow's protests:Iraqi
authorities should legitimately explain why it is necessary to ban
demonstrations planned for August 31, or allow them to proceed. They
should ensure organizers are able to appeal any ban.
Two groups who organized concurrent demonstrations in Baghdad calling
for the cancellation of parliamentarians’ pensions applied to the
Interior Ministry for permits on August 21, 2013, as required by Iraqi
law. On August 22, Interior Ministry officials refused to issue them
permits, without providing them a reason. Organizers of both
demonstrations expect them to go ahead, but told Human Rights Watch that
they are concerned that Iraqi security forces will use force to block
what they said would be peaceful demonstrations, and may arrest and
intimidate organizers should the planned demonstrations take place.
“It’s ironic that officials suggest that using force to block peaceful
demonstrations will assist Iraq’s ‘march to democracy’,” said Joe Stork,
acting Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities can
ban demonstrations if they believe they will be violent, but here the
concern seems that protests will be politically embarrassing or
inconvenient.”
In a statement published on its website on
August 27, the Interior Ministry said that “security challenges and
traffic problems require us to delay the demonstrations” of August 31.
Citing “consideration of the risks of terrorism by al-Qaeda and
Ba’athists… and of weakening the authority of the state, compounded by
regional agendas that seek to weaken Iraq for their own interests,” and
its determination to “challenge all negative phenomena that stand in the
way of the march of democracy,” the statement said security forces
would “firmly confront those who disrupt the security of the country and
of its citizens.”
The UN’s first special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, emphasized in a May 2012 report that
states may only restrict the right to peaceful assembly where there is a
“pressing social need.” The report stressed that states should not need
to ban peaceful gatherings in order to fight terrorism effectively, and
said “the free flow of traffic should not automatically take precedence
over freedom of peaceful assembly.” Kiai places responsibility on
authorities to provide assembly organizers with “timely and fulsome
reasons” for any ban, and the possibility of a swift appeal.

Up to a thousand people blocked Whitehall, in London, this week in a protest against plans to bomb Syria (Pic: Guy Smallman)

David Cameron was humiliated last night, Thursday, when he suffered a historic Commons defeat on plans to bomb Syria.He asked MPs to back military action but in an unprecedented blow, they voted by 285 to 272 against air strikes.The vote reflects the overwhelming anti-war feeling among people in Britain – and the fear that missile strikes against Syria would be the start of yet another failed attempt by the West to control the Middle East.Cameron, who had made a passionate plea for support for his proposals to launch attacks on Damascus after a chemical weapons attack last week, was forced to issue an embarrassing climbdown.The shaken leader admitted it was clear that parliament “does not
want to see British military action”. He added, “I get that. The
government will act accordingly.”Opposition MPs responded by shouting, “Resign”.The last time a prime minister was defeated over an issue of war and
peace was in 1782. As the scale of the historic defeat became clear
Conservative MPs turned on each other. Education secretary Michael Gove
barked, “You’re a disgrace, you’re a disgrace” at government rebels.The result was also a blow to Nick Clegg who had ditched his party’s soft anti-war stance to side with the Conservatives.“This marks a sea change in British politics. The government no
longer has a blank cheque to go to war,” Labour MP and chair of the Stop
the War Coalition, Jeremy Corbyn, told Socialist Worker.The Coalition organised the two million-strong march against the Iraq war in 2003 – and hundreds of smaller protests and meetings all over Britain since.At the time, commentators said such demonstrations were futile,
despite their size, becauseTony Blair’s government continued with its
war plans.Now, even the right wing press acknowledge the popular feeling that opponents of the Iraq war were right all along – and that most people are against an attack on Syria.The vote against bombing, rather than showing that parliament is “in tune with the people”, is proof that mass protest works.“This victory isn’t just a result of the last few days, but the last
ten years. It’s a vindication of all those who have marched to stop
war,” says Corbyn.The ruling class is riven by splits over how to drive forward its
plans for more austerity and war. And, with Cameron’s clique shaken to
the core, there is a great opportunity for everyone who is sick of the
Tories to step up action against them.Those fighting for decent pay, services and pensions can stand
taller. Those battling against benefit cuts can shout louder. And,
everyone who has resisted racism, imperialism and war can be sure that
fighting back gets results.Plans by the West to bomb Syria are in trouble, but the threat remains. There is a grave danger that the US will launch missiles against Damascus regardless of whether or not it has global support .That’s why protests against them, planned for this weekend, are as vital as ever.Let’s give the warmongers a taste of the anger that will hit them if they try to plough on with their bombing raid plans.

National demonstration: No attack on Syria
Saturday 31 August, assemble 12 noon, Temple Place (nearest tube Temple), London WC2R for march to Trafalgar Square via Parliament.
Called by Stop the War and CND

August
30, 2013 – In response to signals from the Obama administration that it
will pursue U.S. military intervention in Syria in the wake of attacks
last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following
statement:

We strongly oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria and urge the
Obama administration to support increased diplomatic measures to
protect civilians in the region. A United Nations investigation into the
massacre of last week is still ongoing. For whoever is deemed
responsible, accountability must come by way of investigation and
prosecutions under international law, not further militarism in the
region.

It is a manifest lesson of this country’s recent history that U.S.
military intervention in conflicts of this kind has not served human
rights or humanitarian purposes, even when these are the stated goals.
The U.S. and Iraq are still reeling and suffering from a decade-long
illegal war that was waged on the basis of false information about
weapons of mass destruction and sold to the American people as a quick
military intervention. Hundreds of thousands, including many civilians
and children, died as a result of that war, in which the U.S. used
weapons that have been widely condemned, such as white phosphorous,
napalm-class weapons and weapons containing depleted uranium. Iraq is
still dealing with the catastrophic aftermath, which includes
skyrocketing rates in birth defects and cancer widely attributed to the
use of these weapons. The U.S. should be accounting for this harm and
making reparations, not readying to engage militarily once again.

UN officials are calling for political solutions to the crisis in
Syria – not additional violence. The Obama administration needs to act
in concert with other countries and international legal bodies to broker
a political settlement in Syria and bring an immediate cessation of
violence. Diplomacy and the rule of law, including international law,
must be our guideposts for acting in this situation.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing
and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR has previously challenged U.S. military action and use of force as violating U.S. and international law, including in the invasion of Grenada, in El Salvador, in Panama, for the First Gulf War, Serbia/Kosovo and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. CCR
is currently representing a group of U.S. veterans of the Iraq war and
two Iraqi human rights organizations seeking accountability and
reparations for the war as part of the Right to Healinitiative.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is
dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the
United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights
movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational
organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force
for social change.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.